Sergio Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc.
436 N.J. Super. 305
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Rodriguez (born in Argentina, limited English) completed a two-page English employment application for Raymour & Flanigan in August 2007; the form included a conspicuous, bolded provision (all caps) waiving longer statutes of limitation and requiring any employment-related claim to be filed within six months, and waiving jury trial. He signed after taking the form home and having a friend translate and assist.
- Plaintiff was hired in September 2007; in 2010 he was promoted (signed a separate 4-page driver application that did not include the six-month clause) and later injured his knee; he was laid off October 1, 2010.
- Plaintiff filed suit July 5, 2011 alleging retaliatory discharge and disability discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and workers' compensation retaliation; defendant moved for summary judgment as time-barred under the six-month contractual limitation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding the six-month limitation conspicuous, reasonable, not contrary to public policy, and not rendered unenforceable by unconscionability; court also rejected plaintiff's novation argument as unsupported.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the six-month contractual limitation enforceable as to these state-law claims (distinguishing federal claims subject to EEOC exhaustion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of six-month contractual limitation in initial application | Six-month clause is unconscionable (adhesion contract, language barriers, abridges statutory two-year limitations for LAD and retaliatory discharge) | Clause is clear, conspicuously presented, reasonable, and parties may shorten statutory limitations absent statutory prohibition | Enforceable: six months is reasonable, not against public policy for state claims without administrative-exhaustion prerequisites |
| Effect of language barrier / translation on assent | Rodriguez had limited English; clause should not bind him | He took form home, had a fluent friend translate, asked no questions; signatory is presumed to know contents | Assent presumed; translation assistance and lack of questions undermined barrier claim |
| Whether promotion application (driver form) novated or superseded initial agreement | New driver application (no six-month clause) constituted a novation, voiding the initial limitation | Second form merely collected job-specific info and did not show intent to supersede prior terms | No novation: novation must be clearly proved and was not shown; initial terms survived |
| Applicability to federal claims subject to EEOC exhaustion | (Argued generally) contractual shortening effectively abrogates remedies | Distinguish federal claims requiring EEOC exhaustion from state-law claims; contractual limitation unenforceable where it would abrogate EEOC process | Court distinguished and noted six-month clauses may be unenforceable for EEOC-subject federal claims, but enforceable for non-EEOC state claims like those here |
Key Cases Cited
- Mirra v. Holland Am. Line, 331 N.J. Super. 86 (App. Div.) (upholding contractual shortening of filing period when reasonable and not contrary to public policy)
- Muhammad v. Cnty. Bank of Rehoboth Beach, 189 N.J. 1 (2006) (contract-of-adhesion analysis and sliding-scale procedural/substantive unconscionability framework)
- Rudbart v. N. Jersey Dist. Water Supply Comm'n, 127 N.J. 344 (1992) (factors for assessing adhesion contracts and that adhesion status begins but does not end unconscionability inquiry)
- Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586 (1947) (parties may contractually shorten statutory limitation periods if the shortened period is reasonable)
- Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 (2002) (application of adhesion and arbitration-clause principles in employment application context)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard; one-sided record insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (1993) (two-year limitation referenced for certain employment-related claims)